From: Omer Ansari (omer@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed Aug 28 2002 - 06:03:34 GMT-3
Jason,
thats sounds reasonable.
thanks again!
Omer
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Jason Sinclair wrote:
> Omer,
>
> Again this comes down to the requirements of the lab and whether you are
> explicitly excluded or requested to do something. In the real world you
> would never do this, and with the pressure of the lab and the mistakes that
> will be made, I would not advocate doing this. The more sane (or pretty)
> your routing tables the easier it will be for you to identify issues and
> resolve problems.
>
>
>
> Jason Sinclair CCIE #9100
> Manager, Network Control Centre
> POWERTEL
> 55 Clarence Street,
> SYDNEY NSW 2000
> AUSTRALIA
> office: + 61 2 8264 3820
> mobile: + 61 416 105 858
> email: sinclairj@powertel.com.au
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Omer Ansari [mailto:omer@ansari.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 August 2002 09:11
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: route-feedback: shall i worry about design aesthetics or not
>
> All,
>
> when you have already set up redistribution...and then sometimes when you
> add new vlsm routes say in EIGRP/OSPF as per instructions, it has happened
> that if they were of a different classful network, these vlsm routes get
> redist'ed into RIP/IGRP and get redist'ed back again as classful FLSM routes
>
> now things are working fine as the longer mask routes are pointing into
> the classless RP, but these ugly routes are still around in the Route
> table pointing into the RIP/IGRP domains, clearly not pretty.
>
>
> my question is, is a pretty routing table also important from the lab's
> grading perspective, or if i know things are working, i should be content
> and not worry about beautifying the route table.
>
> Omer
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:48:40 GMT-3